xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 2/4] renameat2 syscall: check plain rename

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] renameat2 syscall: check plain rename
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 07:18:25 -0700
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx>, Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20140414023020.GJ27694@dastard>
References: <1397231517-4641-1-git-send-email-miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> <1397231517-4641-2-git-send-email-miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> <20140414023020.GJ27694@dastard>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 12:30:20PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> IOWs, XFS is returning EEXIST rather than ENOTEMPTY for several of
> these rename tests. The rename man page says this about the errors:
> 
>        ENOTEMPTY or EEXIST
>               newpath is a nonempty directory, that is, contains
>             entries other than "." and "..".
> 
> Which implies that both errors are valid and so the test should pass
> in either case. Can you send a patch to handle these
> different-but-valid error returns?

I would much prefer if all Linux filesystems behaved uniformly here.

While EEXIST sounds much more logical to me in this case I suspect most
other filesystems have copy & pasted from ext2, and we should switch to
ENOTEMPTY as well.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>